As this series of reviews on Michael Allen's Sanctification heads to a conclusion, a couple windows into areas where Wesleyan theology[1] overlaps with Allen’s Reformed presentation and where it differs from his presentation may be appropriate.

1.Areas a Wesleyan-Arminian Biblical Theology of Sanctification
overlaps with Allen’s Presentation in affirming 1.1.union with Christ as the ground of all salvific
benefits, including sanctification. 1.2.positional sanctification through union with Christ. 1.3.progressive sanctification—one’s character becoming
increasingly like Christ and the potential for increasing relational intimacy
to God 1.4.the ongoing sanctification of those who have been made
perfect positionally (τετελείωκεν Heb. 10:14). 1.5.the NT describes believers as holy ones who testify on
the basis of a good conscience (2 Cor. 1:12; Acts 24:16; 1 Tim. 1:19) rather
than describing them with terms that focus on what remains to be transformed
(e.g., “sinners”; “sinners saved by gr…

‎ Proverbs 14:17 קְֽצַר־אַ֭פַּיִם יַעֲשֶׂ֣ה
אִוֶּ֑לֶת וְאִ֥ישׁ מְ֜זִמּ֗וֹת יִשָּׂנֵֽא׃ APB Proverbs 14:17 A quick-tempered man
acts foolishly, And a man of evil schemes is hated. Exegesis The word translated
‘evil schemes’ (mezimmah) can be positive (prudence, 1:4; 8:12;
discretion, 2:11; 3:21; 5:2) or negative (12:2; 14:17; 24:8). It is the context
that determines its reference. The phrase ‘ish mezimmot ‘man of schemes’
occurs twice in Proverbs (12:2; 14:17). In Proverbs 12:2, Yahweh delights in a
good man but He condemns a ‘ish mezimmot. This requires us to understand
the ‘ish mezimmot as someone who is not a good man and is worthy of
Yahweh’s condemnation. Given that background, ‘ish mezimmot in 14:17 is
not merely hated by people, but also by Yahweh. In Prov. 24:8, the ‘master of mezimmot’
is one who “plans to do evil.” So then, in every instance in which mezimmah
is in a construct-absolute relationship with a term referring to a person, it
means ‘evil schemes.’ Theological Reflection …

‎ Proverbs 14:16 חָכָ֣ם יָ֭רֵא וְסָ֣ר מֵרָ֑ע
וּ֜כְסִ֗יל מִתְעַבֵּ֥ר וּבוֹטֵֽחַ׃ Proverbs 14:16 A wise man is cautious
and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. (NASB) Translation Notes The NASB seems to have unnecessarily downshifted the sense of yare’ to ‘be cautious. ’ Elsewhere, when used
with turning aside from evil, the NASB consistently renders it ‘fears,’ since it usually has God/Yahweh as the object (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3; 28:28; Prov. 3:7; 14:16; 16:6). Further,
this is the only place the NASB translates מִתְעַבֵּ֥ר
as ‘arrogant,’ following BDB which offers only this passage for that sense. All
other clear instances mean “be enraged, full of wrath” (Deut. 3:26; Psa. 78:21,
59, 62; 89:39; Prov. 20:2). Prov. 26:17 could mean this, but there are textual
issues there. It seems more reasonable, therefore, to translate it here as ‘full of wrath.’ Keil & Delitzsch reason similarly: “Most interpreters translate 16b: the fool is over-confident
(Zöckler), or the fool rus…

Chapter 8: Grace and Nature
Chapter 8 considers “two realities: the promise of the new
creation and the nature of the new creation” (200). Allen addresses “how the
grace of new creation relates to the nature we have been granted, namely, how
regeneration pertains to and informs our thinking of the relationship of grace
and nature” (200). He concludes that “the dynamic of
biblical sanctification … can only be described fittingly in eschatological
terms: the moral tension involved here is neither sequential (as if holiness means the simple transversal
from sinfulness to righteousness, with no remainder), nor partitive(as if some portion of the self were holy,
with others remaining depraved), but
redemptive-historical (wherein the Christian is marked by the sign of
the pilgrim, no longer captive in Egypt yet still sojourning to Canaan)” (211). Affirmation
Allen uses Hebrews 3-4, 8, and 12 to frame a realized
eschatology in terms of Israel’s journey to Canaan. I applaud his avoidance of t…

Chapter 7: Justification and Sanctification
Chapter 7 focuses on “the distinction between the
justification and the sanctification that we possess in [Christ]” (170). Allen
traces Calvin’s “double grace” of “reconcilation through Christ’s blamelessness”
and of “sanctification by Christ’s Spirit” (171-75), and then briefly notes that
the Reformed tradition’s twofold-grace language has roots in Athanasius and
Cyril of Alexandria (175-76). He explores this new covenant distinction in
Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36-37, and Hebrews 8. He deploys Romans 6 and 12 in
particular against various Reformed challenges to the distinction between
justification and sanctification. He wraps up with a fascinating application of
Hebrews to the topic. Affirmation
I appreciate that Allen notes that Scriptures speaks of
justification in ways other than righteousness (dikaiosune) terminology (e.g., forgiveness, pardon, reconciliation) and warns against
narrowing our consideration of this topic to forensic language …

Chapter 6: In Christ
Allen surveys the biblical data, metaphors, and broader
canonical themes which inform the doctrine of union with Christ only briefly
(143-47). Calvin’s synthesis of this biblical data receives extended attention (147-55).[1] Allen
then turns to the wider Reformed evaluation of union with Christ, noting
particularly the idea of participation in God and giving special attention to
the Westminster Confession’s treatment.Karl
Barth and T. F. Torrance’s critique of Rationalistic vs Evangelical Calvinism
serve as foils for his argument for a traditional understanding of particular redemption.
He concludes by affirming that all blessings as well as the being of believers
come through union with Christ. “In that gracious and
life-giving union, ... all he has is ours: his name, his inheritance, his
glory, his righteousness, and even his holiness.”

Affirmation
My agreement here is both wide and deep, as befits the
reality that Wesleyan-Arminianism shares a great deal of comm…

Chapter 5: Incarnation The first Adam both fell and
failed, committing sins of commission and omission, and thus broke the covenant
of creation. The second Adam “fulfills the two-fold need of those who have
broken the covenant of works”: cleanness and holiness. He accomplishes not only
“the work of purification but also the task of sacralization” (140). Allen
identifies the exegetical roots of this Christological tenent in Leviticus and
its fulfillment in the gospel of Matthew. The dogmatic components of Christ’s
work include distinguishing the active and passive obedience of Christ which
takes the form of humiliation and exaltation. Christ’s humiliation redeems
nature, and His exaltation glorifies it. Affirmation
Allen’s
reading of Leviticus is marvelous (118-123). He puts together cleanliness and
holiness beautifully. For example, “Leviticus
portrays a world whereby one must be actively set apart by consecration even
after one has avoided impurity or had one’s impurities purged by a…

Chapter 4: Covenant
Allen surveys Rudolph Otto’s
phenomenological and Mary Douglas’s cultural anthropological approaches
(91-93). He tips his hat to their potential benefits but insists we must read
Scripture as “instances and instruments of divine action--as the very word of
God” which “bears a prescriptive force and not merely a descriptive
opportunity” (93). Scripture teaches that “fellowship or communion with God is
the fundamental basis and goal” and the “canon’s central episode. Jesus is
Immanuel.” (94, 96). While fellowship is the telos of the gospel,
covenant frames that communion. Within Reformed tradition, the “covenant of
works” describes “this relational order and vocational telos of human
existence before God” (100). Consequently, James Torrance’s seven critiques of
federal theology are addressed at length (101-110). He concludes that the
covenant of works informs our understanding of the course of creaturely holiness
and sanctification in four ways: 1) Humans were create…

Chapter 3: Creation
Chapter three begins with human creaturehood. Allen rejects
Barth’s incarnational anthropology and concludes that we should “think the doctrine canonically,” and then christologically
(77). Allen then takes up the implications of “imaging of God.” He critiques four standard views of the imago dei[1]
as 1) limiting the divine image to “one facet of human existence” rather than
seeing that “it is the totality of the human that images God” (81), and 2) wrongly
regarding “similarity between humanity and God” as the primary implication of
the term image (82). Rather, the imago
dei underscores the Trinity’s “intrinsically self-communicating” nature and
highlights a) man’s difference from and b) man's dependence upon God (82). The implications
of his view of the imago dei for “thinking
sanctification” are first, creation attests to “the participatory nature of
creaturely holiness” (85), and second, “all creaturely holiness is communicated
holiness in the same way tha…

‎ WTT Proverbs
6:27-29 הֲיַחְתֶּ֤ה
אִ֓ישׁ אֵ֬שׁ בְּחֵיק֑וֹ וּ֜בְגָדָ֗יו לֹ֣א תִשָּׂרַֽפְנָה׃28 אִם־יְהַלֵּ֣ךְ אִ֭ישׁ עַל־הַגֶּחָלִ֑ים
וְ֜רַגְלָ֗יו לֹ֣א תִכָּוֶֽינָה׃29 כֵּ֗ן הַ֭בָּא
אֶל־אֵ֣שֶׁת רֵעֵ֑הוּ לֹ֥א יִ֜נָּקֶ֗ה כָּֽל־הַנֹּגֵ֥עַ בָּֽהּ׃ Proverbs 6:27-29 Can a man take fire in his bosom And
his clothes not be burned? 28Or can a man walk on hot coals
And his feet not be scorched? 29So is the one who goes in to
his neighbor's wife; Whoever touches her will not go unpunished. v. 27 Father, the agony and damage
of physical burns is a sign of the agony and damage of soul that the folly of
adultery brings. As v. 32 says, “he who would destroy himself does it.” Yahweh, your perspective is that
adultery is like dumping fire in the lap or walking barefoot across burning
coals. I will get burned. I cannot dodge the bullet. Any
appearance of “getting away with it” is illusory. You state, “he will not go
unpunished” = he will not be remain blameless (HALOT), be free, exempt from
punishment…